open Democracy News Analysis - Reactions to Brown's speech, Guy Aitchison - Comments

hamewith on "Reactions to Brown's speech"

hamewith — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:55:51 +0100

Most of the speech was dire, a string of cliches and sound-bites strung together with nothing much. It picked up towards the end but only by invoking such recent New Labour innovations as the NHS.

Not logged in on "Reactions to Brown's speech"

Not logged in — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:03:16 +0100

my personal favourite was 'we fixed the roof when the sun was shining'. Priceless.

Mike Small on "Reactions to Brown's speech"

Mike Small — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:54:28 +0100

Much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with the line that 'content-wise, it was absolutely appalling and thoroughly dishonest'.

This will run until Glenrothes, then bust open again. It is only the supreme anglocentricity of the Westminster media that prevents them from seeing this. He's safe till next Spring is nonsense.

Nor can we ignore the massive hypocrisy of Labours attempt (and the delegates apparent gullibility) at pretending they will now 'crack down' on financial mismanagement. As Mark Steel wrote of the bankers yesterday: 'despite being the most vastly paid section of society, no one can explain a single thing they do that's of any value at all.'

Adding: 'The total amount of city bonuses for the last year, it turns out, is £12.6bn. Which is more, apparently, than the nation's entire budget for transport. '

This is extraordinary. How does Brown manage to fool large sections of his own party into thinking of him as 'Old Labour' while conniving with the grand larceny of finance capitalism?

anon2 on "Reactions to Brown's speech"

anon2 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:14:14 +0100

Looking at the pics on yesterday's papers of the lip-smacking opener, I felt the triumph of a pious hypocrisy: Brown's children may not be up for grabs, but his wife definitely is!

britologywatch on "Reactions to Brown's speech"

britologywatch — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:51:49 +0100

Effective Brown's speech may have been as a 'speech act': something which, through the emotional force of its delivery and its overt confrontation with his opponents, exercised a sort of 'put up or shut up' effect. However, content-wise, it was absolutely appalling and thoroughly dishonest. It demonstrated Brown's authoritarian and narrow, utilitarian philosophy, in such lines as: "Our aim is a something for something, nothing for nothing Britain. . . . So our policy is that everyone who can work, must work".

Or again:

"Nobody in Britain should get to take more out of the system than they are willing to put in. . . . we recognise the contribution that migrants make to our economy and our society, but the other side of welcoming newcomers who can help Britain is being tough about excluding those adults who won't and can't".

Or again:

"The Conservatives may want to represent the future, but whether its Europe [no referendum as promised] or energy [nuclear plants in England only without adequate consultation], planning ['relaxing' planning restraints and threatening even more of our limited green spaces] or tax credits [well, that's hardly been a glowing success], university places [but still tuition fees in England and not Scotland] or 42 days [...], whenever they are tested on substance they have nothing to offer to meet the big challenges of tomorrow".

Above all, the speech exemplified Mr Brown's contempt and hypocrisy towards England. I agree with 'Dave's part': methinks the PM does protest too much about fairness. Underneath all that rubbish about creating a 'fairer Britain' is concealed the fact that most of the examples of Brown's programme relate to England only and still fail to make up for the inequality in public-service provision in England compared with Scotland and Wales. Yes, we're going to get free NHS prescriptions in England (which the PM didn't state explicitly) but only for those with chronic or long-term conditions; and even that paid for by cost savings in the drugs budget, which presumably include the savings made by not funding the types of cancer and Alzheimers drugs that are available on free prescription in Scotland. Yes, better measures to help the elderly stay in their homes longer and pay for their care; but they still have to pay for it, unlike in Scotland where it's free. Etc, etc.

The man goes on about Britain Britain Britain. But on the England-only issues, the 'fairness' that's on offer emerges as unfairness by the comparison with Scotland that Brown does not make. And on truly Britain-wide issues, he's an authoritarian. The man's a menace; and the sooner the Labour Party does do the dirties on him, the better for 'the country', i.e. for England.

Reactions to Brown's speech, Guy Aitchison

Guy Aitchison — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:23:17 +0100

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Jon Cruddas - the star of this year's conference according to Jackie Ashley - writes in his Coffehouse diary that Brown's speech "nailed it", in part because he was more "emotionally literate" this time round. Cruddas reckons the space for the coup plotters has been shut down and anticipates a "mass defection of Labour’s Taliban to the Tories next week".

Brown's "this is no time for a novice" line will of course be the one most people remember. Double rewarding, as Iain Dale notes, because it can be interpreted to apply to both Miliband and Cameron. And following Ruth Kelly's resignation, which has somewhat overshadowed the reaction to Brown's speech, might it not apply to her as well?

The line that really stuck out for pro-Brown blogger Paul Linford though was "United we are a great movement". This, he hopes, signals a return to the idealism of the pre-Blair Labour party when the phrase "This Great Movement of Ours" was widely used by its leaders.

Dave's part - also on the left - takes a more sceptical view, suggesting that any speech that bangs on so much about "fairness" and being "fair" "is at high risk of either banality or simply meaninglessness". Even by the bare minumum standard of "fairness", Dave notes, contemporary society under Labour falls far short.

The Times has an interesting set of verdicts, including that of Phil Collins, former speech writer to Tony Blair, who sums up the problems with Brown's economic analysis: "Opponents were caricatured as laissez faire dogmatists or command and controllers. And the trouble with Brown as the Third Way between Trotsky and Ayn Rand is that everyone is a third way between those two." (Blair, of course, would never descend to the level of caricaturing his opponents, would he Phil?)

Also worth checking out is Daniel Finkelstein. He argues that the Government's present unpopularity spells not just the end of Brown, but of the whole New Labour project, digging up a ten-year-old analysis he wrote for CCHQ to explain why.